……….. under the cumulative heat of his real history.
First, Barack demonstratively removes his flag pin, claiming that there are other ways to express patriotism. In itself, a kind of trivial complaint.
Then, Barack doesn’t salute the flag. While more serious than the flag pin flap, still a kind of small issue.
Then, Barack’s wife says that her husband’s campaign has made her proud to be an American for the first time in her life. Naturally, more eyebrows are raised since Michelle has seen things like American victory in the Cold War where dancing Germans on the Wall made most of us very, very proud. Most Americans who vote are, in fact, proud of our greatest of all history’s nations. Michelle’s comments do betray the edge of resentment and self loathing that informs so much of liberal, particularly black liberal, thought.
Now, Jeremiah Wright comes along and exposes Barack’s twenty year participation in a radical racist and anti-American church. Barack’s claim that he was unaware of Rev. Wright’s flaming evangelism of hate is unpersuasive to those of even below average intelligence. After all, what are the chances that Barack only missed church when his minister, the man who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children, delivered sermons of hatred?
Moreover, this isn’t like tying Barack to Calypso Louis Farrakhan or McCain to Charley Hannagan. A candidate cannot be responsible for the words of everyone who supports the candidate because no candidate, Republican or Democrat, can control the words, thoughts and deeds of every supporter.
But a candidate is responsible for the words of everyone that the candidate supports because the candidate does control his or her own beliefs. Barack has endorsed Rev. Wright by attending his church, relying on him as a political mentor and giving him a position of prominence in Barack ’08, a position that was only terminated when Wright became an embarrassment.
The Wright/Obama connection has migrated from Fox to the second best news network, CNN. That means coverage by others is “right” around the corner.
Maybe there is more to this young Obama fellow that originally meets the eye?
First, Barack demonstratively removes his flag pin, claiming that there are other ways to express patriotism. In itself, a kind of trivial complaint.
Then, Barack doesn’t salute the flag. While more serious than the flag pin flap, still a kind of small issue.
Then, Barack’s wife says that her husband’s campaign has made her proud to be an American for the first time in her life. Naturally, more eyebrows are raised since Michelle has seen things like American victory in the Cold War where dancing Germans on the Wall made most of us very, very proud. Most Americans who vote are, in fact, proud of our greatest of all history’s nations. Michelle’s comments do betray the edge of resentment and self loathing that informs so much of liberal, particularly black liberal, thought.
Now, Jeremiah Wright comes along and exposes Barack’s twenty year participation in a radical racist and anti-American church. Barack’s claim that he was unaware of Rev. Wright’s flaming evangelism of hate is unpersuasive to those of even below average intelligence. After all, what are the chances that Barack only missed church when his minister, the man who married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children, delivered sermons of hatred?
Moreover, this isn’t like tying Barack to Calypso Louis Farrakhan or McCain to Charley Hannagan. A candidate cannot be responsible for the words of everyone who supports the candidate because no candidate, Republican or Democrat, can control the words, thoughts and deeds of every supporter.
But a candidate is responsible for the words of everyone that the candidate supports because the candidate does control his or her own beliefs. Barack has endorsed Rev. Wright by attending his church, relying on him as a political mentor and giving him a position of prominence in Barack ’08, a position that was only terminated when Wright became an embarrassment.
The Wright/Obama connection has migrated from Fox to the second best news network, CNN. That means coverage by others is “right” around the corner.
Maybe there is more to this young Obama fellow that originally meets the eye?
13 comments:
Sporer,
This is a great post!
I read something recently about Barack's "patriotism problem"...whatever that means.
This sad post reminds me of a great American flag sticker I saw on a car the other day. In small letters by the flag it said "Think. It's patriotic."
After the W/Dick disaster, we need the kind of real patriotism Obama represents.
rf:
Agree with your optimism but this pastor issue is a looming disaster. Even if McCain soft pedals it, the 527's will be all over it. We will end up more familiar with Wright's rants than with Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
It is awfully hard to believe Obama was never exposed to any of this vitriol; unless, like many, he slept through the sermons.
The ides of March have been unkind before.
Art,
You may be right. The media and voters do care about this kind of bs, and when they do, we end up with the kinds of politicians we deserve. Think of the last 7 years. When voters cared more about debate sighs than actual content of the answers, we got what we deserved.
Rev. Wright has been described as a "father figure" by Obama...
Surely Obama had to have SOME clue that this guy harbored virulent anti-US, anti-white sentiments...
Obama has held this guy up in the past as being someone whom helped shape his views and beliefs...and now he wants everyone to believe that he's just the "crazy uncle" that people just ignore...
Quite hard to believe, frankly...
rf:
You will find no disagreement from me on the inanity of voters and little on the often absurd media.
The real problem though is that we have this man, Obama, who is so eloquent as he speaks to a fracture in politics which has driven most of us crazy for years, and yet we know very little about him. We know what he says but we assume he means what he says. The longstanding relationship with Wright raises a valid question regarding where his true allegiances lie.
Am not panicking but finding it hard to suppress memories of The Manchurian Candidate from flipping in and out of my mind.
Would libs be troubled if a Republican candidate attended a white supremist church for twenty years.
Remember the liberal outrage that W even spoke at Bob Jones U?
Obama's situation is far worse. Wright represents a very angry and very anti-American strain of left (not really merely "liberal" per se) that would be very dangerous in the WH.
sporie:
Even we liberals shudder at the thought of extremism, coming from whatever direction.
This could be a relevant issue if we did not know where Obama stands on these issues. But he has elaborated quite extensively on these and many other topics in his books and speeches. Plus, Obama has categorically denounced Wright’s statements. Art’s mention about assumptions could be said about any one of us on pretty much any topic. Do we really know what these people would do besides what they say they would do?
Still, I’m not saying this won’t be an issue. Sadly, we have a long history of these types of trivial issues playing a major role in elections.
rf:
Your question is spot on. We don't really know. We have a current example of that in the White House.
Obama's denouncement could be genuine or could be political. Unless he was going to cancel his campaign immediately, what else would you expect him to say. Repudiations and rejections by politicians can seldom be relied upon without question.
Trivial is an arguable adjective. If Wright made only one or two infammatory statements tossing them off as trivial incidents might make sense. We have been barraged with quite a few and those statements coupled with a 20 year mutual admiration portend something beyond trivial.
I like Obama and had faith that he would be a good candidate in the general election. This issue has begun to alter my analysis and I am not what you would consider your typical voter.
A couple of additional thoughts.
Not that I have heard all the controversial comments of Wright, but some of the stuff he said about American foreign policy is more or less standard political fare for an R congressman (who may still be running for prez) and certainly for a good chunk of us D's. Nothing too exciting there, even though it surely seems like treason to pc-conservatives like Sporer. And Mr. Wright seems to enjoy colorful language to express his views, just like the author of this blog.
Regarding some of the racial stuff, it surely is not productive or appropriate. But I really don't think you can compare an angry older black man to a white supremacist. One is defending racial oppression. One cannot let go of past oppression and anger it has generated. I've said many times before, I'm not big into the victimhood mentality. Definitely a problem with my party. But one must still put these things in perspective.
rf:
It is one thing for citizen x to scream black inferiority and elimination or for citizen y to exclaim white supremacy and oppression. It is quite another for a "man of the cloth", a man who can find blind allegiance to his words, a man who should be leading his flock down the "paths of righteousness" not down the paths of hatred and irrationality.
If that "man of the cloth" is some obscure, backwater pastor, dismissal of his absurdity may be in order. But when that "man of the cloth", or a man of any prominence, is as closely, emotionally associated with a leading candidate for the Presidency of the US, one cannot help but be concerned about the influence he has wielded on that candidate.
It is easy to reject and repudiate; words are manna to politicians. It is easy to take him off any committee assignment or fire him from an advisory position. What is not easy is for us to know the extent of his influence on this candidate. What are Obama's real beliefs?
Clearly he could not run a successful campaign lip-synching Wright's vitriol. If one were to seek the office with disdainful motives, choosing the exact opposite approach would seem the most logical.
I have a hard time believing that Obama buys into this crap. At the same time "perspective" is somewhat less than apparent.
Do I see what is real or do I see only what I wish were real?
4:37:
Books are a good thing. Much can be learned by reading many of them. To hold that one particular book gives us the real, truly honest, perspective on truth, does present a picture of an uninformed mind.
Folks who write books, just like all of us, have bents; have their own views on truth and cause and effect. The fact that their views appear on a printed page adds no particular empirical value to their thoughts.
Post a Comment